The State of North Carolina Generally Had Capacity and Mostly Followed Disbursement Requirements, but Its Procurement Process Needs Improvement
We audited the State of North Carolina’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds. We initiated this audit as part of our commitment to helping the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) address its top management challenges and to support HUD’s strategic objective to support effectiveness and accountability in long-term disaster recovery. Further, Congress has expressed strong interest in…
September 16, 2022
Report
#2022-AT-1002
Summit Construction and Environmental Services, LLC, Richmond, VA Generally Complied With Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Evaluations
We audited Summit Construction and Environmental Services, LLC, because we received an anonymous complaint alleging that Summit Construction (1) did not perform lead-based paint evaluations in a timely manner, (2) did not produce adequate lead-based paint inspection reports in accordance with applicable requirements, and (3) showed favoritism toward certain contractors performing lead-paint inspections. Our objective was to determine…
September 25, 2019
Report
#2019-PH-1005
The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Charlottesville, VA, Did Not Always Comply With Applicable Procurement Requirements
We audited the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s use of public housing operating and capital funds because (1) we received a hotline complaint alleging that the Authority mismanaged its procurement activities and improperly awarded an internet services contract for more than $200,000 without receiving competitive bids and (2) we had never audited the Authority. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority…
August 02, 2019
Report
#2019-PH-1002
The North Carolina Department of Commerce Did Not Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants as Required by HUD
We audited the North Carolina Department of Commerce’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) grants as part of our annual audit plan because the Department received more than $57 million in NSP1 and NSP3 funding. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Department administered its NSP1 and NSP3 grants in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements.
The Department did not administer…
June 14, 2019
Report
#2019-AT-1004
The Housing Authority of the City of Evansville, Evansville, IN, Did Not Follow HUD’s and Its Own Requirements for Units Converted Under the Rental Assistance Demonstration
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Evansville’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion based on the activities included in our 2018 annual audit plan and our analysis of the housing agencies participating in RAD in Region 5’s jurisdiction (States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin). Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority complied with the U.S. Department of…
August 02, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-1003
The Indianapolis Housing Agency, Indianapolis, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Regulations and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Financial Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Indianapolis Housing Agency’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on an anonymous complaint. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2018 audit plan. Our objective was specific to the allegations in the complaint and was to determine whether the Agency wrote off accounts receivable, deleted adjustments to accounts payable and receivable, and made adjustments to accounts payable and receivable…
August 01, 2018
Report
#2018-CH-1002
The Greensboro Housing Authority, Greensboro, NC, Generally Administered Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Conversion in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Greensboro Housing Authority’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its RAD conversion in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether the Authority (1) executed appropriate written agreements, (2) ensured that project financing sources were secured…
May 10, 2018
Report
#2018-AT-1004
The North Carolina Department of Commerce, Raleigh, NC, Generally Administered Its Grant Program in Accordance With HUD Regulations
We audited the North Carolina Department of Commerce’s Small Cities Community Development Block Grant as part of the activities in our annual audit plan. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the Department of Commerce (1) awarded funds to local governments that met a CDBG national objective, (2) spent funds only for activities that were eligible and supported, and (3) included all methods of distribution in its action plan.
The…
April 16, 2018
Report
#2018-AT-1003
The Lexington Housing Authority, Lexington, NC, Did Not Administer Its RAD Conversion in Accordance With HUD Requirements
We audited the Lexington Housing Authority’s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) conversion. We selected the Authority based on concerns from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing and a request from the Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its RAD program in accordance with HUD…
August 21, 2017
Report
#2017-AT-1011
The Housing Authority of the City of Hammond, Hammond, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Hammond, IN’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2017 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority correctly calculated housing assistance and utility allowances and appropriately managed its Family Self-Sufficiency program.…
July 14, 2017
Report
#2017-CH-1003
The Loudoun County Department of Family Services, Leesburg, VA, Did Not Always Ensure That Its Program Units Met Housing Quality Standards
We audited the Loudoun County Department of Family Services’ Housing Choice Voucher program because (1) we received a complaint alleging housing quality standards problems with a housing unit participating in the County’s program, (2) the County had 688 vouchers and received more than $6.4 million in fiscal year 2016, and (3) we had not audited its program. Our audit objective was to determine whether the County ensured that its Housing…
June 09, 2017
Report
#2017-PH-1004
The Yorkville Cooperative, Fairfax, VA, Did Not Administer Its HUD-Insured Property and Housing Assistance Contract According to Applicable Requirements
We audited the Yorkville Cooperative’s administration of its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-insured property and housing assistance contract based on a complaint alleging that the Cooperative (1) spent excessive amounts for maintenance and repairs and (2) did not recertify tenants in a timely manner. Our objective was to determine whether the Cooperative administered its HUD-insured property and housing assistance…
May 22, 2017
Report
#2017-PH-1003
The Owner and Former Management Agent for Baldwin Creek Apartments, Fort Wayne, IN, Did Not Always Operate the Project in Accordance With HUD’s Requirements and the Regulatory Agreement
We audited Baldwin Creek Apartments as part of the activities in our fiscal year 2016 annual audit plan. We selected the project based on our analysis of risk factors related to multifamily projects in Region 5’s jurisdiction1. Our objective was to determine whether the project’s owner and management agents operated the project in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) requirements and the…
September 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1010
The Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Requirements
We audited the Sanford Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs as a result of problems identified during a technical assistance review performed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing. Additionally, our audit is in keeping with our annual audit plan to ensure that public housing agencies sufficiently administer HUD’s programs in accordance with…
September 13, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1013
Cunningham and Company Settled Alleged Violations of Failing To Comply With Federal Housing Administration Loan Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG), investigated Cunningham and Company to determine whether it violated HUD requirements when underwriting loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Cunningham is an FHA mortgage lender, formerly located in Greensboro, NC. Based on OIG’s review, HUD contends that Cunningham may be liable under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act…
September 08, 2016
Memorandum
#2016-CF-1803
The Housing Authority of the City of Muncie, Muncie, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s Requirements and Its Own Policies Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Muncie’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
The Authority did not always administer its program in…
August 23, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1006
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Richmond, VA, Did Not Always Charge Eligible and Reasonable Central Office Cost Center Fees
We audited the fees that the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority charged to its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing programs for central office cost center services based on issues identified during our prior audit of the Authority. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority charged fees to its HUD housing programs for central office cost center services that were eligible, reasonable, and…
August 17, 2016
Report
#2016-PH-1005
The Housing Authority of the City of Anderson, Anderson, IN, Did Not Always Comply With HUD’s and Its Own Requirements Regarding the Administration of Its Housing Choice Voucher Program
We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Anderson’s Housing Choice Voucher program based on the activities included in our 2016 annual audit plan and our analysis of risk factors related to the public housing agencies in Region 5’s jurisdiction. Our audit objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with HUD’s and its own requirements.
The Authority did not always administer its program in…
July 28, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1004
The Sanford Housing Authority, Sanford, NC, Did Not Comply With Procurement and Financial Requirements
We audited the Sanford Housing Authority’s procurement and financial operations. We selected the Authority based on concerns from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) North Carolina State Office of Public Housing, following a technical assistance review performed. The technical assistance review identified issues with the Authority’s procurement practices and financial operations, among other items. The…
July 19, 2016
Report
#2016-AT-1008
The State of Indiana’s Administrator Lacked Adequate Controls Over the State’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program Income and Posting of Quarterly Performance Reports
We audited the State of Indiana’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2015 annual audit plan. We selected the State because it received the most program funds under the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 in Region 5’s1 jurisdiction. Our objectives were to determine whether the State’s Office…
June 30, 2016
Report
#2016-CH-1003